THE PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES versus ZAIDA KAMAD y AMBING

G.R. No.  174198. January 19, 2010

Illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165).

Or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

          The above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously give away, distribute and sell to a customer for P300.00 pesos one (1) small heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing crystalline substance (shabu) weighing 0.20 gram, which when examined were found positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

               

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be duly established:

(1) Proof that the transaction or sale took place; and

(2) The presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.

 Proof of the corpus delicti in a buy-bust situation requires evidence, not only that the transacted drugs actually exist, but evidence as well that the drugs seized and examined are the same drugs presented in court.  This is a condition sine qua non for conviction as the drugs are the main subject of the illegal sale constituting the crime and their existence and identification must be proven for the crime to exist. As we discuss below, the special characteristics of prohibited drugs necessitate their strict identification by the prosecution.

Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this case.  A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof.  The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

From the constitutional law point of view, the prosecution’s failure to establish with moral certainty all the elements of the crime and to identify the accused as the perpetrator signify that it failed to overturn the constitutional presumption of innocence that every accused enjoys in a criminal prosecution.  When this happens, as in this case, the courts need not even consider the case for the defense in deciding the case; a ruling for acquittal must forthwith issue.